When looking at elections we often have “mandatory recounts” that are triggered in a close race. Now, I’m all for ensuring that all ballots are counted and that priovisional or otherwise questionable votes are given the consideration they are due. What I don’t understand is this fetish for recounts “to be fair”.
There is nothing special about recounts – they’re simply another count of the existing ballots. It is known that some fraction of votes can be damaged in a recount (depending on the ballot technology), and there is nothing in a recount that avoids the inevitable (if small) errors that can occur with even the best technology.
So why do we bother? Why substitute a second count (often with a less reliable method such as hand counts instead of automated counts) when effectively you’re just throwing the dice again and hoping the random errors come out the same? It seems it would be easier and less contentious to simply say that there’s one count that gets certified, and further challenges need to prove that there was a significant error in the existing count to justify reopening the results.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Honest ecections are possible.
SeriousLaff (Diary) Thursday, November 13th at 8:07PM EST (link)Human error is the big problem in voting. Sloppy or incorrecty filled out ballots are the biggest problem. The answer is tow machines. The first touch screen machine would correctly fill out the ballot you choose (including none of the above) and make sure you voted only once for each candidate. It would print out a properly filled out ballot that you could double check. If it is not correct then it would be voided and put back in the machine. These would be tallied only for backup purposes.
The second machine would scan the ballot count the vote, and give you a receipt. Machine 1′s numbers should match machine 2 and there would be no hand counting of votes necessary. The counting machine would be the official tally at the end of the day.
The problem is that the voter fraud party doesn’t want thei. The Dems rely on bogus recounts for at least 2 senate seats in every election. With a system like this “voter intent” could nt be determined by a Democrat vote counter.
I wish they'd be more open
NoKoolAidForMe (Diary) Thursday, November 13th at 9:17PM EST (link)If a Democrat loses by a very slim margin, let’s just be open about what is done anyway. Let’s go straight to the heavily Democratic areas and mine for some votes. Hmmm… this guy voted for Obama, and didn’t vote at all for the Senate race. Well, it’s clear who he would have voted for, so let’s check this one off for him. What!?? He voted for Obama and the Republican in the Senate!? No way. Let’s change this vote. He must have been confused.
Magic votes need not be counted
seattle_ite Friday, November 14th at 4:41AM EST (link)An honest precinct captain or judge would not suddenly “find” a box of ballots in their trunk, or a closet in the basement. Especially when that box of votes is suspiciously single party.